Not wishing to be a wet blanket or a chicken little but have you considered the facts?

Humans could be among the victims of sixth 'mass extinction', scientists warn - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-20/sixth-mass-extinction-impact-humans-study-says/6560700)

It seems we are busily engineering our own demise, now climate change experts have been telling us this for decades for a different reason, they think we are capable of changing things, like human nature, however the reality is we are asleep, we have no idea what is happening around us, it is called ELE, and for the uninitiated that is extinction level event, this one won't be an asteroid but it might, it will be neglect

1km asteroid Icarus getting CLOSER to Earth and a hit could ravage a continent | Nature | News | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/585066/VIDEO-1km-asteroid-Earth-hit-ravage-continent-Slooh-Icarus-astronomer-Bob-Berman)

Hello Clete:

There IS a tipping point where we can't go back... I think we're there. Certainly, I can understand our push for fossil fuels.. I like to be warm too. But, ONCE it has been determined that it isn't good for us, you'd THINK we'd come up with an alternative plan... But, noooo... Some of us would rather forge blindly ahead. I dunno why.

excon

Hello Clete, I think you still have time to put another shrimp on the barby... and enjoy it. You may as well while you can!

Tal I would never waste a prawn by putting in on a barbie, yes I'm known to enjoy the odd prawn washed down with a coldie.

I am a believer that we are beyond the tipping point and our attempts to wind back climate change are futile and the only thing we damage by taking advantage of the resources we have is us and the only people we will damage by playing King Canute to climate change is us. Whatever set in motion the warming 10,000 years ago is still in action, we have not yet seen the climax

We have the ability to be carbon free right now but we won't do it because the cure might be worse than the complaint

Hello Clete:

There IS a tipping point where we can't go back... I think we're there. Certainly, I can understand our push for fossil fuels.. I like to be warm too. But, ONCE it has been determined that it isn't good for us, you'd THINK we'd come up with an alternative plan... But, noooo... Some of us would rather forge blindly ahead. I dunno why.

excon

no problem . Just tell us what source we can implement today ,right now, that can replace carbon based fuels for the needs of a growing worldwide 21st century economy. I can think of one ,but it looks like nuclear power has fallen out of favor lately .

Whatever set in motion the warming 10,000 years ago is still in action, we have not yet seen the climax
umm perhaps the ice age was the catastrophic event that we are still recovering from.


We have the ability to be carbon free right now but we won't do it because the cure might be worse than the complaint
Yes ,every other energy source carries their own risks . Every other source that you know of is supplementary at best ;and to produce them puts other stress on the ecology . Every source you can think of is the result of taking from the earth . You think carbon based is a dwindling source ? Your alternatives are the product of rare earth materials . The truth is that all energy sources impact the natural environment in some way, and life is full of tradeoffs. The windmills that are a blight on the landscape are the product of 8,000 different components . The magnets alone are produced using neodymium and dysprosium, rare earth minerals mined almost exclusively in China. Just one 2 megawatt wind turbine contains about 800 pounds of neodymium and 130 pounds of dysprosium. Your typical natural gas power plant generates 100 MW . You do the math. Is there even that much neodymium and dysprosium in the ground to mine ? They call it rare earth minerals for a reason.
The same is true for solar . Solar panels need tellurium, which makes up 0.0000001 percent of the earth's crust ;3 x rarer than gold . Other rare earths ,Terbium and europium, are used in CFL light bulbs. Even your cell phone uses 60 different elements .
Do you know how these metals are extracted from mines ? Most people don't and they'd be shocked to find out the level of pollution . They basically strip mine. Then they grind the rocks to dust . Then they throw it into water and blow bubbles into the water . That causes 65% of the rare earths to rise to the top where it's extracted . The rest of the slurry remains in a toxic pool seeping into the ground water .

Hello tom:

Maybe IF we had started the Manhattan style project regarding NEW energy sources WHEN I first mentioned it here, on these pages, we'd have it by now. I still think we can get fusion to work. But, NOT if we dabble around the edges.

excon

Dabble around the edges? What is it you actually think we have been doing? If fusion exists it is far from our existing technology and considering it requires a very strong magnetic force and much energy to get started I have the sense that it has the same drawbacks as any of our technologies. We are going to have to bite the bullet and realise that if we existed for millennia as a small population we are going to have to go back to that state if our society is to be sustainable. There is no grand utopia, vast cities it just isn't going to happen and if you observe the advanced societies they begin to get smaller

Big oil ain't gonna to let you mess with their money without a fight. And they don't care about the stuff they have already polluted, and will pollute some more.

While every economy in the world depends on that nasty stuff don't expect a lot of quick changes to happen, but over time big oil's days are numbered. It's just a BIG number right now. That's a problem but only a part of it.

A third of world's major aquifers are threatened (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/06/17/water-aquifer-drought/28893121/)

Big oil ain't gonna to let you mess with their money without a fight. And they don't care about the stuff they have already polluted, and will pollute some more.

While every economy in the world depends on that nasty stuff don't expect a lot of quick changes to happen, but over time big oil's days are numbered. It's just a BIG number right now. That's a problem but only a part of it.

A third of world's major aquifers are threatened (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/06/17/water-aquifer-drought/28893121/)

psst . here's a secret for you . "big oil " is actually "energy companies" . They spend big $$$ on R&D on those alternatives you support. Why ? Because if there is a profit to be made on them ;the energy companies want in. BP said it stood for "Beyond Petroleum" .Chevron's had ads saying "It's time oil companies get behind the development of renewable energy".Chevron ,Exxon Mobil , Shell and BP all invest in biofuels . They would've even invested more if there was money to be made in return. However ,that is not the case.

Hello tom:

Maybe IF we had started the Manhattan style project regarding NEW energy sources WHEN I first mentioned it here, on these pages, we'd have it by now. I still think we can get fusion to work. But, NOT if we dabble around the edges.

excon
The quest for the Holy Grail . Since the dawn of the nuclear age fusion power has been the dream. The ultimate man made solar power.

You will be happy to know that there is a multinational project in France that includes the EU ,US ,China ,India ,Japan, Russia, and S Korea that is dedicated to create a fusion reactor in a controlled environment with the goal of converting plasma physics into an electricity producing power plant.(Canada was in it but withdrew) The name of the project is ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) .T

This was the brain child of Reagan and Gorbachev in 1985 . As of this date they don't expect operations to begin before 2027 . Maybe not quite the speed of the Manhattan Project ,but I suspect the best that the best minds in the field could do.

As of right now the construction costs alone have ballooned to over $14 billion ,3 times the original figure. (Typical government at work).It remains to be seen if the tokamak design can produce more energy than it consumes .That of course has been the challenge of fusion power concept all along.

Bottom line is realistically and optimistically we are looking at another generation for this to begin to be practical. In the meantime we still have a world wide economy to fuel.
We could take a Malthusian reductionist attitude like Clete ,maybe go back to foraging for berries and living in caves or grass huts . But I don't think that humans want that .

Yeah I know, no profit in making massive investments into infrastructure that support the changes that are needed to transition us from fossil to renewables.

Transition from Non-Renewable Energy to Sustainable Energy (http://www.altenergy.org/transition/transition.html), to Future Prospects of Oil Companies (http://www.altenergy.org/transition/future_oil.html)


... The big question is this: Are oil companies acknowledging this issue and, if so, how do they plan to cope with a shift in fuel use?Most petroleum companies publicly acknowledge the environmental damage that their products create. Environmental issues have become more important to the average citizen in the last few decades, so oil companies feel the pressure to modify their products accordingly. But it is apparent that these companies have received less pressure on the subject of future energy. An in-depth search of their web sites reveals that only a few are willing to admit that the US petroleum supply will soon run out that we will be dependent on foreign countries as the reserves of the ever-more-scarce resource dwindle.

To this, Obstacles to use of Sustainable Energy (http://www.altenergy.org/transition/obstacles.html), but that's what we get when big oil(Energy to you Tom) bankrolls opposition instead of innovation, in the name of protecting, and proliferating PROFIT.

Not least of which are government subsidies (taxpayer money). In addition http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/tomorrows_law/files/transition_from_fossil_fuels_to_renewable_energy_f rom_ssrn.pdf


Development of clean coal technologies that reduce carbon emissions per unit of coal burning, could help in buying more time for the transition to a cleaner renewable resource. The paper suggests that current research and development into energy alternatives is miniscule compared to the revenue that could be generated from even moderate carbon taxes and one policy option may be to channel part of an energy tax into research and development.

TAX!! Did they have the nerve to say... TAX!!

It matters not Tom and you know it, the days of the electric auto will be here soon, considering the running cost I don't know why it isn't here now, Oh wait we know that big oil restricts innovation, what ever happened to all this vehicles powered by electrolosis? You never hear processes like that discussed these days

What climate change will do to your loaf of bread (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/un-climate-conference/what-climate-change-will-do-to-your-loaf-of-bread-20150621-ghshcq)

Here is an interesting thought on the problems, including if our bread is not going to be as nutricious what other foods will contribute to the decline?

It matters not Tom and you know it, the days of the electric auto will be here soon, considering the running cost I don't know why it isn't here now, Oh wait we know that big oil restricts innovation, what ever happened to all this vehicles powered by electrolosis? You never hear processes like that discussed these days

oh brother ; electolosis ? Next you'll tell me about that perpetual motion machine.

Yes Tom got the plans for one of those but like everything I don't have the time to do the research and scale it up to be useful. I understand you are skeptical and so am I about many things but with an interest in renewable energy, I'm also interested in alternative energy. Electrolosis has been shown to work but research is needed and big oil just gobbles up patients on various things to prevent that research because one day they may be able to exploit it. Here's another for a laugh wireless transmission of electricity. Way back when there was much interest until they realised that it wasn't possible to meter all consumption, of course, we would be able to do it today but how do you identify who supplied the electricity? Sort of doesn't work in the capitalist business model

Sort of doesn't work in the capitalist business model

But in that central government controlled economy anything is possible . In Italy the trains ran on time and all that . Maybe you'll have your own 'Great Leap Forward " and it's related 45 million deaths . Or the 5 year plan with it's 7 million deaths. It would help you cull that population .... oh wait ;that's right ... you don't want to cull the population of your country . You want it reduced in other countries of color .

Now Tom how can you say that? this is a nation with finite resources. It cannot grow beyond a certain point without falling back to subsistance level. There are fools who think it could support a vast population in the north, but the reality is it can't. This doesn't have the water of the americas, or asia or europe, our rivers run underground and we grow crops on land your farmers wouldn't even try on. Every now and then the whole thing floods, for months roads are impassable and in recent years you have seen some of the results of that. If we had the great lakes system you have things would be different, but it would take a grand vision to create that. Two centuries ago the Murray-Darling was navigable, today it is lucky it has water in it. Could you imagine your waterways in that state?

You think I want the burden to fall on people of colour, it has to start there because they breed faster than others, that is traditional, but in fact, all nations must limit their population because population is growing faster than the world can cope and if you want reduction in carbon it is the only way. The alternative is a massive war for resources chief among it water and food. Now I have done my part I have only had three children. Let the people of colour demonstrate the same restraint

Maybe managing resources for effectiveness, and NOT profit would benefit more people, and promote more investments in better ways of doing things.

and I bet you think that only the government should be making that investment .

Which government do you refer to Tom? The one the rich guy buy or the one that people elect under the constitution? Let's make it easy. Which one do we have NOW?

I did not see this the 1st time I looked at the link. This is from the discredited Paul Ehrlich .When was he right in his predictions ?
Back in 1968 he said “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate,”
https://books.google.com/books?id=odW6AQAAQBAJ&pg=PT142&lpg=PT142&dq=%E2%80%9CThe+battle+to+feed+all+of+humanity+is+ over.+In+the+1970s+hundreds+of+millions+of+people+ will+starve+to+death+in+spite+of+any+crash+program s+embarked+upon+now.+At+this+late+date+nothing+can +prevent+a+substantial+increase+in+the+world+death +rate,%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=44o2YYYZEY&sig=rc5RFYPlP3I3GYxYnQIOvzJlKis&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QiKIVevFNoKW-AHP7YGAAw&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBQ (https://books.google.com/books?id=odW6AQAAQBAJ&pg=PT142&lpg=PT142&dq=%E2%80%9CThe+battle+to+feed+all+of+humanity+is+ over.+In+the+1970s+hundreds+of+millions+of+people+ will+starve+to+death+in+spite+of+any+crash+program s+embarked+upon+now.+At+this+late+date+nothing+can +prevent+a+substantial+increase+in+the+world+death +rate,%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=44o2YYYZEY&sig=rc5RFYPlP3I3GYxYnQIOvzJlKis&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QiKIVevFNoKW-AHP7YGAAw&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBQ)

The world population has more than doubled in the time since , but the amount of food per head has gone up by more than 25 per cent.

He also said “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

Now England is indeed a basket case . But again he was way off . He also said

I ask him when did extinctions take place ? During periods of warming like when the Vikings were planting vinyards in Nova Scotia ? ;or when the Brits were grilling oxen on the frozen Thames ?

Which government do you refer to Tom? The one the rich guy buy or the one that people elect under the constitution? Let's make it easy. Which one do we have NOW?
so you don't like private investment because you don't like the profit motive ;and you don't like public investment because you don't trust the government .
How would you fund your altruistic R & D ?

I think what is objected to is super profits and gouging by averious CEO who hold no interest but their own

The oil companies don't come close to windfall profits.....only 8-9 % slightly larger than what Starbucks ;slightly lower than food mfg. and they make and much lower margins than other industries like software companies..... Google reported a net profit margin of 25% . ) . The total dollar figures appear large because they are big companies. So you can demagogue and quote the dollar value of their profits without looking into the numbers . Apple had larger profits than Exxon-Mobile($18 bil compared to 15.9 bil) and people line up to buy their products . No one complains .

Interesting that the companies you cite as having good margins are seriel tax avoiders using double dutch tactics, but I cry no tears for oil companies, they gouge prices at any opportunity. I don't need to look at the numbers having many years experience in the accounting of large corporations. As far a I am concerned anything above a net 5% of sales is too high

Interesting that the companies you cite as having good margins are seriel tax avoiders using double dutch tactics, but I cry no tears for oil companies, they gouge prices at any opportunity. I don't need to look at the numbers having many years experience in the accounting of large corporations. As far a I am concerned anything above a net 5% of sales is too high

and I would not bother opening a business for such low margins.

Tom it isn't about margin it is about volume, any telco will tell you that. The margin for selling fuel retail is pitifully low, far below the benchmark I suggest but those business exist and it is the oil companies who gouge the profit. Business is not about how many quick millionaires it makes, this is lost on capophiles like you. Business is about achieving a return on investment which provides a reasonable safe return. I can say I want a 15% return on capital over the life of the asset and that would be a reasonable return, it has no reference to the quantum of sales other than a certain turnover must be available to achieve the return

so let me get this straight.... you would regulate how large an international company is permitted to grow ? You really are a statist micromanager . So while the nanny/welfare state approaches insolvency and businesses sag around the world ;your answer is to restrict business and to commandeer other people's money to feed the masses growing sense of entitlement .

Yes Tom I certainly would regulate how large and wide spread your mega companies can grow, any mega corporation in fact. They are a blight on the landscape, quite literally. Monsanto for example, the greatest polluter on the planet and I haven't even started on the oil companies. You keep wanting to run the nanny state propaganda but in reality these corporations are no respecter of laws, or national boundries. No, we should keep all these companies within their own national boundries, it's OK, I don't mind keeping the Murdochs of this world at home. There are ways they can make a profit, exploit their patients, invest. We don't need their presence and Tom I already said that the growing masses need to be kerbed, convinced that population growth needs to be restricted, because the public purse doesn't grow at the same rate. Look at your own national debt your capitalist model has failed to provide. Right now we are investigating 30 of your largest corporations for tax fraud here.

The super profits tax wasn't a bad idea it just didn't go far enough, we have a few banks here who should be put through the wringer. Once your auto makers got off the public teat they left so don't do us any favours

Look at your own national debt your capitalist model has failed to provide I already addressed the cause of that .


your answer is to restrict business and to commandeer other people's money to feed the masses growing sense of entitlement .

Keep running your strawmen arguments they have no feet

Big business needs to be regulated because it has shown it is incapable of regulating itsself. The idea of being a good corporate citizens is to throw money at some cause while interferring in the political process through lobbying. The idea of freedom in your country has been to carry the idea of personal freedoms to corporations, this is a nonsense.

You blame your national debt on the excesses of one political party while forgetting the excesses of the other, but how much of your debt has been accumulated in payoff for the political support of corporations. Your thinking is too corrupted to even contemplate the twists and turns as you wriggle to get out from under the facts

Asteroids? Global warming? No, we're headed for another little ice age. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/chances-of-little-ice-age-on-rise/story-e6frg6xf-1227415254811)

Possibly speech or perhaps even a big ice age pity you have to be a subscriber to find out what Murdoch thinks

Hello Science Deniers:

If the laws of physics allow matter to fuse, then MAN can make matter fuse.. If we "dabble", tom is right.. It'll take a generation.. But, if we INVEST, we can do it in 10 years..

excon

You think this is another "fly me to the moon moment" ex when a nation can be galvanised to focus on solving a problem few scientists are working on. Unfortunately what can be done in miniture cannot be scaled up with the technology we possess. For fusion to be useful the reaction must be contained, we would be as well off if we tapped the geothermal resources of the Earth